setup_funding

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the creation behavior and required fields for each instrument type, but lacks detail on side effects, validation, or error handling. For a creation tool, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently covers two instrument modes. It is front-loaded with purpose. While it could benefit from bullet points or structured sections, it is concise and clear for the complexity (10 parameters).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., customer must already exist), idempotency, or common errors. For a tool with 10 parameters, the completeness is adequate but has notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: for bank_account, it specifies required fields (bank_name, account_name, currency with allowed values, account_details with specific subfields, account_owner) and optional networks; for wallet, it lists required address and network with allowed values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a funding instrument (bank account or crypto wallet) for a customer, and distinguishes between the two types with specific required fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_webhook or execute_transfer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool (to set up funding), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like setup_offloader_wallet or onboard_customer. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.